Wow, cutting off perfectly healthy body parts because you have a risk of them becoming cancerous is crazy IMO. And I am a cancer survivor, it took 6 months of chemo to save my life. I still would never do what she did.
Well, is it immoral?
It depends on a lot of things.
…] Except when performed for strictly therapeutic medical reasons, directly intended amputations, mutilations, and sterilizations performed on innocent persons are against the moral law.
1: of or relating to the treatment of disease or disorders by remedial agents or methods
2: providing or assisting in a cure
I don’t think we know enough to say yes or no, and anyways even if we could, I don’t think we should say yes or no, because the next case is different from this one, and so on :shrug:
Except when performed for strictly therapeutic medical reasons, directly intended amputations, mutilations, and sterilizations performed on innocent persons are against the moral law.
I think this portion is regarding such procedures done against ones will or without the persons consent. IE infant and children, the mentally disabled or procedures enforced by the state.
prevention of cancer and ones life is justified, she got implants as someone would get false teeth. she didn’t do it out of vanity.
But we must be very careful, because such a statement can be taken very far into a very dangerous ground.
The end does not justify the means. Never.
No, this applies to people doing it themselves voluntarily as well.
to be fair, this is not the same as breast implants to give you more breasts, I cannot think of any woman that would have her breast and nipple cut off for any other reason…but u agree that it could be misunderstood in thinking getting a boob job was ok…
I am not referring to this specific case :blushing: I was making a more general argument: when we use the word prevention to justify something, how much prevention is too much? I am not referring to this particular case directly, just making the argument that every situation is unique and not necessarily justifiable a priory :shrug:
For some women it is NOT crazy. I’m not being disrespectful but do some research on the issues here.
With all due respect, where did you get your medical degree? I think you are speaking about something of which you know nothing.
You are right. Mastectomy is the best course of action in some circumstances.
The women that go through with this are taking brave steps- often because they love their families and want to ensure that they will be with them.
Where did I make any medical claims. If you notice, I said IMO and said I wouldn’t do it myself.
Eeewww that’s insane. :eek:
It’s not immoral, it’s just crazy. :whacky:
Again, it’s not crazy in some circumstances. Look it up. A mastectomy is, sometimes, an appropriate route to take for a woman with the gene showing that she will very likely get cancer.
Don’t know Sharon’s story, but often if a patient has had a previous malignant tumor removed from a breast and then later gets one in the second breast, double mastectomy is the course of treatment preferred by physicians. Perhaps this was true in her case. In any case, reconstructive surgery after mastectomy is a personal preference.
I think you need to go back and reread my post. I’m not sure why you are the claiming I’m the one making medical claims when I didn’t at the same time you are the one making them. Are you unclear that IMO means in my opinion? And that I said I wouldn’t cut off HEALTHY body parts to prevent cancer? Your post here has nothing at all to do with what I said and additionally you are making assumptions about her supposed state of health.
She has been open about her previous colon cancer, so there is no reason to assume that she had a previous breast cancer issue and is now hiding that at the same time she is telling the media she had a preventative mastectomy because she tests positive for the gene. We can only take her at her word. Well we should take her at her word IMO.